History’s has no conclusive problem, assumptions can be drawn from the circumstantial evidence and even first hand accounts but we can never see the situation as a whole.
For example recent discovery of personal letters and documents of the Armadas commander (Medina Sidonia) show that his appointment was not warmly received. The story is explained excellently in BBC2’s new documentary Armarda: 12 days to save England. New evidence appears seemingly out of the blue, like some long lost painting of not so likely to be fraudulent. But there is this dissatisfaction that we cannot see the entire story, even if we were present at the time (being at a girls school I know this all too well) we cannot know each motivation or hidden circumstance.
But there is this overall feeling with history that each resolution can by argued with infinate objectives. I remember my history teacher talking about a univercity student writing about Nicholas III’s deep rooted hatred of Germans stemming from his German mothers mistreatment of him which eventually concluded in willing participation in world war 1 and ultimate hatred of German culture. Of course this opinion is not held by many historian (if any) but it does through light on unexplored notions. The obserdity of his deep rooted psycological issues resulting in all out war is just a little obserd but then again he wouldn’t be the first – I mean that’s essentially the entirety I nazi ideology!
But there is no way around this dissatisfaction, historians devote their lives to untangling the complexity of action and reaction in the previous millennia’s. We are all in search of our own worldly understanding and looking backis the best way to look to the future (well possibly not in technology but certainly politically). If we can gain a general understanding in some detail surely small circumstances are trivial when larger more pressing issues have already been concluded as the “spark”.
But what do I know ?
Sorry rant over